Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:38:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > I think that I mistyped, and meant sarge when I said woody. > > In that case: most of those GRs simply revert the social contract with > different ideas of "how long". One goes further and establishes a > pattern for future revisions of the social contract.
Yes. Will Anthony do that? I assume so. > In that context asking "what does all this mean for the release" seems > like refusal to think. I thought carefully about the last resolution, and assumed that it was blindingly obvious that of course changes would get phased in over a period of tim. I was shocked that Anthony took the position they would need to be instantly conformed to. I am worried that again there will be something that I think is blindingly obvious that he will take differently. > Why isn't it sufficient that he's stated that his interpretation of > the old SC allowed some packages and his interpretation of the new SC > does not? Because I have no idea whether he agrees that the GRs in question actually revert it properly. I am worried that he will interpret one in a way that prevents it. And since it's so easy for him to say "yes", and he won't, it makes me suspect all the more that the answer isn't yes, and I am trying to figure out why he won't tell us. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
